to get this point across without all the "average is more than the lowest quartile but highest are actual lower than our lowest ..."

What are we really trying to say here?

Democrats -- LEARN TO COMMUNICATE IN SOUND BITES.

There, not that difficult.

It is not our obligation to discuss every possible nuance and permutation.

The lazy wealthy are taking too much, while doing too little to help everyone else. Th en you have to mention how people at that top 10% don't have to spend every dollar they earn the same month, where a working class person spends their money quick which goes through the economy. I feel we have to personify these greedy wealthy folks as being a drag on the economy, we have had 40 years to show they don't "create jobs" with their extra loot. They shuffle it amongst their own ilk, very slowly buying and selling luxury items like fine art and extra homes. The key is we wouldn't take more from those wealthy as if it was good to just give it to some one else, but it is to get more money to people who are going to spend it in the American economy. It is a careful like to walk to really personify the harm these wealthy folks are causing to everyone and even to the environment it self.

but I fail to see what is so hard to understand about what he said. I might have modified the 40% with the word lowest but his next sentence corrects that. It is clear he is saying that 80% of people in CA pay around average taxes, 40% pay less taxes than they would if they lived in FL or TX, and that the lowest earners in those states are taxed at a higher rate than the highest income people in CA.